The Gp Points System

[Guest David Telfer]

Well, I agree with Paragon that the winner of the final should be the highest points scorer. And I more or less agree with Barrow Boy on how the scoring system should work in practice.

[mothorsen 39]

I am glad they ditched the double points system. To win a single event does not mean you are the most consistent rider throughout the season. A winner leaves with six or five points more than he had after 20 heats, and this doesn't rocket him up the score chart just for winning a single event. 3-2-1-0 all the way.

[Eglese 19 19]

Just to reiterate, I'm not saying that the GP winner is the best rider but I'm saying that winning the final for me doesn't carry the sense of achievement that it should, some agree and some don't.

 

I do feel however that if the GP system is just there to find out the best rider then do away with semis and the final and then you will have a proper league type situation that in theory will find the best rider over the season.

[SCB 0]

Is there not something odd about a scoring system where a rider could theoretically win every GP round and still not be world champion?

But a rider can win every race apart from the 11 finals and be World Champ. Why should a final be worth more?

[mothorsen 39]

But a rider can win every race apart from the 11 finals and be World Champ. Why should a final be worth more?

And if he does, he's an overall better rider and world champion. This is the point of a Grand Prix, isn't it? To gather points over a number of meetings, and come out on top.

[waiheke1 4,295]

I think that the winner of the final should have the most points at the end. The system we have now is a joke, can you see the England winning the World cup in football because they scored more goals in the group stage. No other sport on the planet can have a competitor not even make the final and win the meeting.

not a valid comparison - the world cup is essentially a knock out tournament, albeit one which commences with a round robin phase.

The speedy gp is more akin to a league competition.

If u want extreme examples though, a team could theoretically win the world cup without scoring a single goal ( outside penalties) - doesn't that seem ridiculous?

or tennis where a player could win a major but still drop down the rankings? every sport has anomalies.

I think the current scoring system is perfect, and a vast improvement on yesteryear (which has included systems very much like what barrow boy has suggested).

[manchesterpaul 447]

The rider who wins the final should get 25 points.

The rider who is 2nd in the final should get 20 points.

The rider who is 3rd in the final should get 18 points.

The rider who is 4th in the final should get 16 points.

Both riders who are 3rd in the semi finals should get 14 points.

Both riders who are 4th in the semi finals should get 12 points.

All other riders should get the points they have scored.

 

I would however allow any rider to keep his points if he has scored more than 12 points in qualifying for the semi finals.

 

I think the idea is to keep it simple as in every point earned in every race is used. Even speedway fans would struggle to remember the above scoring, and tv newcomers wouldn't have a clue.

 

No artificial changes to the sport's 3-2-1-0. Reward for reaching the semi-finals and final and not finishing last in either is extra points on a...yep...3-2-1-0 system.

 

You have said what you feel each rider 'should' get.

But not why.

 

What is wrong with the current system that this method 'puts right'?

 

And I more or less agree with Barrow Boy on how the scoring system should work in practice.

 

The same questions that 'Grand Central' posed that went to 'barrow boy' (and so far unanswered) go to you. The bold font is mine.

 

Why on earth take away from the basic fairness of what you earn in every race over the whole season determines the champion. The sport has always run races on a 3-2-1-0 basis which is a great example of something being simple, very easy to remember and wouldn't befuddle a potential newcomer to the sport.

[Eglese 19 19]

Well, it seems to me from the newcomers I've tried to introduce to the sport that the idea of 5th place top scoring is embarrassing. I just don't see the point of semis and a final if we're just after the rider who is best throughout the year. A GP series has several GPs (the series is not a GP) and in most sports GP winners are rewarded the most from each GP.

 

For me I would liven up the GP finals by making the winner the highest scorer or would drop the semis and the finals.

[manchesterpaul 447]

Well, it seems to me from the newcomers I've tried to introduce to the sport that the idea of 5th place top scoring is embarrassing. I just don't see the point of semis and a final if we're just after the rider who is best throughout the year. A GP series has several GPs (the series is not a GP) and in most sports GP winners are rewarded the most from each GP.

 

For me I would liven up the GP finals by making the winner the highest scorer or would drop the semis and the finals.

 

Indeed, technically to get a perfect representation of who scores the most points over a season would be the basic 20 heats where every rider meets every other rider once. Sometimes perfection shouldn't be meddled with. Can you get any fairer than each rider meeting each other once?

 

However, i think that the reasons for the 'dramatic' semi-finals and final are as i touched upon earlier in the thread

 

The main reason for their existence i reckon is the American play-off aspect that has permeated most sports and competitions on the planet. Play-offs were primarily instigated in US sports leagues for financial purposes in order to keep up interest and involvement in a competition which in turn keeps the turnstiles clicking and tv viewers watching.

 

Also there is the aspect of leading to a 'leave them wanting more' entertainment angle of a last event grand final.

 

Incidentally, when you say "For me I would liven up the GP finals by making the winner the highest scorer" you surely don't mean to have a final heat and the winner of that gets the most points awarded? Or do you mean the highest over 20 heats is the highest scorer?

Edited August 12, 2013 by manchesterpaul

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

Indeed, technically to get a perfect representation of who scores the most points over a season would be the basic 20 heats where every rider meets every other rider once.

 

To be technical perfect you'd also need to come-up with a formula that over the course of the season ensured every rider had each gate the same number of times, as well as different combinations of heat line-up. It wouldn't necessarily be any fairer in reality though, as the best gates would vary from GP to GP, whilst injuries and replacement riders add in an additional factor.

 

I think this is a nice example of what I consider differences in "European" thinking vs. "American" thinking. Europeans want to know who is the best. Americans want to know who is the winner. This is why all major American (non-motor) sports have playoffs

 

Well the Football League had promotion and relegation playoffs in the late 19th century, before baseball got around to it. Even then, they only employed a solitary 'playoff' series between rival leagues to decide the best team.

 

So it's hardly American thinking..

[manchesterpaul 447]

To be technical perfect you'd also need to come-up with a formula that over the course of the season ensured every rider had each gate the same number of times, as well as different combinations of heat line-up. It wouldn't necessarily be any fairer in reality though, as the best gates would vary from GP to GP, whilst injuries and replacement riders add in an additional factor.

 

Well the Football League had promotion and relegation playoffs in the late 19th century, before baseball got around to it. Even then, they only employed a solitary 'playoff' series between rival leagues to decide the best team.

 

So it's hardly American thinking..

 

Gee Humphrey i thought someone would take it further lol. I obviously mean to a 'reasonable' sporting extent. I'm surprised you didn't quote atmospheric conditions

 

Each rider meeting each other once is infintely better than employing a system such as in the UK Elite League where teams (competitors) don't meet each other an equal number of times. That's what i mean by it's as perfect as can be. One would imagine gate positions good and bad even themselves out over the course of a series.

 

I also thought someone would quote a sport using play-offs from yonks ago lol. However, i'm referencing them in the modern era of television sport. Surely you accept how football, speedway and many other sports have adopted them in relatively recent times. Possibly because of exposure to to the plethora of American sports on our tv screens these days. A lot of the UK sporting public became aware of play-offs when the NFL was introduced to UK tv and was very popular.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

Each rider meeting each other once is infintely better than employing a system such as in the UK Elite League where teams (competitors) don't meet each other an equal number of times.

 

The 20-heat individual format is about the fairest you can get, but the league format isn't necessarily designed to be fair. 7 riders allows heats to be programmed so that riders don't need to take two on the trot, and in most cases they have at least two heats in-between (which was/is an important consideration for extra T/S and R/R). 8 would be better as it would allow for better balanced heats, but presumably it would also mean paying the travel expenses of an extra rider.

 

The original 13-heat format and its latter day derivatives is designed so that riders in equivalent categories (e.g. heat leaders, second-strings, reserves) generally ride against each other more often. Although quirky in places, it is quite cleverly formulated and unlike most things in speedway, has largely stood the test of time.

 

Possibly because of exposure to to the plethora of American sports on our tv screens these days. A lot of the UK sporting public became aware of play-offs when the NFL was introduced to UK tv and was very popular.

 

I don't doubt it, although playoffs are not as alien to British sport as people popularly imagine. For example, Rugby League employed playoffs in various forms from 1909 until 1973, and Minor Counties cricket had championship playoffs long before the NFL was screened in the UK.

[Eglese 19 19]

Incidentally, when you say "For me I would liven up the GP finals by making the winner the highest scorer" you surely don't mean to have a final heat and the winner of that gets the most points awarded? Or do you mean the highest over 20 heats is the highest scorer?

 

Well in my original suggestion I awarded them 5 points for the series on top of all other points so there would still be a possibility they wouldn't top score. However, for me, the point of a final is severely watered down currently in my opinion, so I would say yes currently I'd rather see the winner top scorer than the "extra heat" that the final is now. I know you disagree as do a lot of people and that's fine, I know my the point I'm making and it's a matter of opinion, I'm not wrong and neither are you, it seems the majority like it how is so that's fair enough.

[oldace 1,678]

Well, it seems to me from the newcomers I've tried to introduce to the sport that the idea of 5th place top scoring is embarrassing. I just don't see the point of semis and a final if we're just after the rider who is best throughout the year. A GP series has several GPs (the series is not a GP) and in most sports GP winners are rewarded the most from each GP.

 

For me I would liven up the GP finals by making the winner the highest scorer or would drop the semis and the finals.

 

Ah that one again is it. I take it these newbies loved the sport until this came up and have now vowed never to go again, like with guests, tactical rides or whatever argument the poster is trying to sell.

 

Over the years I have introduced many people to the sport who have either liked it or otherwise but their enjoyment, or lack of was purely to do with what they saw on track and wasn;t in anyway connected to any rules or regs.

 

Jeez just imagine having to explain an old world final. 81 for instance. Penhall is world champion and Carter isn't but Carter beat Penhall. Bet they would find it embarrassing and vow to never come again. Maybe they would go off and support Championship football were the team finishing 6th can be promoted at the expense of the team in 3rd

[Grand Central 2,654]

I now understand that 'problem' that is percieved by one or two here is just the simple straightforward fact that under the current system the winner of the final - and thus the GP - may not have the most points from the night to carry forward into the series.

They are vexed by it and feel it fundamentally wrong.

They find it embarrasing or a joke.

I am entirely comfortable with it.

 

I think we are all aware that the night ending with semi-finals and finals is to create a dramatic climax for all spectators via TV or at the venue.

And they do that brilliantly.

 

I am more surprised by people trying to advance the argument that the GPs they've taken people to haven't had exciting enough climaxes.

And that a few more points thrown at the last race would make all the difference.

That's just bizarre.

 

 

.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Grand Central